Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

AF100, ouch

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not like the motion blur on the GH2 in that Dale video. It looked very ethereal, kind of ghost like.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Speaking for my 7D... Canon doesn't have to do much to make me more content. I have a short list, that I'll rehash here- but its not my real point.

An OLPF designed for 1080p (which will solve a lot of moire issues)
A full size HDMI output
RCA, MiniXLR or XLR audio inputs
Audio gain controls- software is fine, a la 5DMK2
Improve audio recording to PCM
Improve HDMI output to full frame rate full resolution with no overlays during recording.
Provision for more than one pin to secure the camera to a tripod.
I'd like a better arrangement for external power
I'd like it to have an electronic shutter. (which would make the camera less complicated and make it more readily adaptable to PL lenses.)

That would make a very nice video camera. Certainly something that competes well with the AF100.

.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but the Canon photo division won't be doing any of that to their photo cameras.
 
David Rasberry said:
I did not like the motion blur on the GH2 in that Dale video. It looked very ethereal, kind of ghost like.
Click to expand...

Here is the Bruce Dale vimeo - with comments from Bruce.
http://vimeo.com/14725884

I don't know, it looks OK and maybe for $1500 with the 14-140 it could serve a purpose, but I don't think it is the be all or end all.
 
Last edited:
"$6,789.95 x 11.5 = $78,084.42 that's pretty close to 79,641.00 of Alexa price."

Sanjin, i could agree with your argument if equipment cost would be the only consideration in a movie budget. But gear is only a fraction of the total. Besides that you rent, you don´t buy. So unless you do a lowest-budget production yourself, you may just buy equipment like the AF100 and hope for the best. But even then, I doubt if you would not try to borrow gear for free. Buying stuff like this is for gadgeteers* or for anybody, who only wants to work on corporate or TV productions on the cheap.

*Interesting that the `prosumer industry´ is turning out the next best thing every 2 years. Initial cost is always around 5-6000 USD:
JVC HD-100 - oh it´s HDV PRO!
Sony EX1 - it´s CineAlta all the way for 6.000 only!
Sony EX3 - how much better can it get? (only $ 3.000 more!)
Canon D5MkII - `cinema look and feel´ for (almost) everybody! (but you want this cool rig, this cool monitor, this cool finder - and maybe a lens ...)
Panasonic A100 - you don´t want to wait for Scarlet, right?

This is why I like Jim Jannard´s motto to make obsolescence obsolete.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
That's all well and good, but the Canon photo division won't be doing any of that to their photo cameras.
Click to expand...

Oh... I agree whole heartedly... which is why its not my real point.

To restate... of all the thing on my wish list, form factor isn't.

The camera shape works fine. It takes some getting used to... but no more than any handycam.

So, all this I hear about how its form factor makes it a problem just doesn't jive with me.

All that other stuff is vastly more important. Not that I think Canon will make a camera like that until the market has well and truly moved on... witness the XF300/305, which would have been awesome cameras had they been released two years earlier.
 
peter roehsler said:
"$6,789.95 x 11.5 = $78,084.42 that's pretty close to 79,641.00 of Alexa price."

Sanjin, i could agree with your argument if equipment cost would be the only consideration in a movie budget. But gear is only a fraction of the total. Besides that you rent, you don´t buy. So unless you do a lowest-budget production yourself, you may just buy equipment like the AF100 and hope for the best. But even then, I doubt if you would not try to borrow gear for free. Buying stuff like this is for gadgeteers* or for anybody, who only wants to work on corporate or TV productions on the cheap.

*Interesting that the `prosumer industry´ is turning out the next best thing every 2 years. Initial cost is always around 5-6000 USD:
JVC HD-100 - oh it´s HDV PRO!
Sony EX1 - it´s CineAlta all the way for 6.000 only!
Sony EX3 - how much better can it get? (only $ 3.000 more!)
Canon D5MkII - `cinema look and feel´ for (almost) everybody! (but you want this cool rig, this cool monitor, this cool finder - and maybe a lens ...)
Panasonic A100 - you don´t want to wait for Scarlet, right?

This is why I like Jim Jannard´s motto to make obsolescence obsolete.
Click to expand...

Peter,

I'm a bit surprised that you didn't get the point what I'm talking about.

It's not about buying a new gear, becoming a sort of gadget boy, etc...BS...at all.

Any budget (big or minimal) doesn't tell you anything about movie artistic quality.

So your "total" or a budget story can't help to explain is that movie good or bad.

Just nothing except about the income of those "budget" eaters involved in that project.

Simply I'm talking more about newest phenomenon of closing the gap between high end (more expensive/professional)

and low end (cheaper/consumer) camera equipment.

Also it's very significant number of responds here from the people who feel a treat or pressure

from newcomer kids who slowly but surely taking over all those old manners in the industry by using cheaper, also job capable and affordable digital cameras.

Again I will repeat some facts from a guy who shot in his carrier with all types of film and digital cameras

and he also won Oscar for cinematography Anthony Dod Mantle.

He shot the latest Danny Boyle movie "127 Hours" mostly with the Silicon Image SI-2K and the Canon Mark IV (small sized digital cameras).

And of course that we are all here desperately waiting for the latest of Jim Jannard´s obsolescence obsolete digital cameras.

Hopefully that these cameras will fill this very narrow gap otherwise...

BTW, the latest short movie by Bruce Dale "Northern Michigan Shores" shot on Panasonic GH2>>>

and

"In some brief video tests conducted by Chris Sanderson and me, we saw what looked to be excellent video quality – so much so that Chris that day placed his order for a GH2 and set of lenses.
Since Chris is a director/cameraman with some 30 years of professional production experience, and currently uses a pair of Sony EX-1s for our commercial video productions, that's saying something."

Panasonic Lumix GH2 First Look by luminous-landscape.com>>>
 
Sanjin says it very well.
Once upon a time people had so many les options and the image quality was crap with video cams. New ops and college students couldnt make anything worth of resolution with video cameras that tme, so they had to use S16 or even S8 film cams , S16 was expensive.
Now people have all these options of Shallow dof REASONABLE GOOD IMAFE even in the case of DSLRs and they can produce very decent shots .
If you have something to tell you can say with red or you can say it with a dslr, it doent matter as long as you have something to say.
You can very well make crap using the best cameras.
I like the fact that Sony MADE A SMALL 2000 usd sensor type camcorder NEXVG10E, that Panasonic came up with the AF 100, Red is coming out with Scarlet and Epic, I mean more and more options to fill the gap in between armature and pro cameras with a very decent image and more options to be more artistic in what you film.
And as far as I can see its not a race whos got the best camera.
you shoot with what ever you ve got.
I respect any filmaker no matter what camera uses.
 
A $400 Go Pro HD can get better images then all the cameras mentioned in this thread. How? size.
 
constantine Tirintzis said:
I dont understand exactly what you mean with your explanation (small) but as I said it doesnt matter what it can do , its what you can do with it that counts.
Click to expand...

I meant the physical size of the camera, for example....base jumping with 4 cameras strapped on to get the images that large cameras cant get, so a small camera although not perfect can get an image the other cams can't. It can be used for a crash cam as well with reasonable results...try surfing with 3 R1's mounted on a surfboard and helmet cam...impossible. I agree with you that it doesn't matter what it can do, its what you can do with it.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Images from new Panasonic 1605 4-megapixel effective pixels / 3 LiveMOS type sensors that can be found at GH2 and AF100 have nothing to do with other moire/aliasing artifacts found at many other DSLR video shots.

Also images from that new Panasonic sensor implemented in GH2/AF100 are crystal clear with well known beautiful color reproduction that made Panasonic famous years ago.

The Boxer: A short film made with the Panasonic Lumix GH2>>>
Click to expand...

Panasonic tell me the sensors are different in the cameras. I don't know how they differ but they are not identical.
 
I would say the same sensor but applied on two different motherboards, one for GH2 and another for AF100/101.

That means also each motherboard was designed for set of specific features that you can get also different on each of these two digital cameras.

Main features on GH2 written by Vitaliy Kiselev (DVXUser)>>>

A list of things that the AF100 does, that a DSLR doesn't (in this case Canon) written by Barry Green (DVXUser)>>>

But what is a difference between GH2 and AF100/101 somebody should write it pretty soon.
 
Vince Doran said:
A $400 Go Pro HD can get better images then all the cameras mentioned in this thread. How? size.
Click to expand...

No not really.

I have seen GOPro HD underwater footage shot underwater side by side with a 5dmkii in an underwater housing.

The GoPro looked downright soft compared to the Canon, as it should since the sensor in the 5d is so much larger.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
No not really.

I have seen GOPro HD underwater footage shot underwater side by side with a 5dmkii in an underwater housing.

The GoPro looked downright soft compared to the Canon, as it should since the sensor in the 5d is so much larger.
Click to expand...

The Go Pro housing is not really designed for underwater use.
Here is a website selling "fix-it" kits.
http://www.eyeofmine.com/gopro/underwater/

The designers of Go Pro made it "waterproof" from the standpoint of mounting on surfboards and boats and such. They never imagined it would try to be used as a dedicated underwater camera.
 
Michael Schrengohst said:
The Go Pro housing is not really designed for underwater use.
Here is a website selling "fix-it" kits.
http://www.eyeofmine.com/gopro/underwater/

The designers of Go Pro made it "waterproof" from the standpoint of mounting on surfboards and boats and such. They never imagined it would try to be used as a dedicated underwater camera.
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of better solutions these days.

There are many new alternatives to the GoPro coming up. Basically these are HD board cams married to a digitizing/recording engine and since we have eliminated the need for tape drives, and the cell phone industry (new iPhone has nearly the quality of a GoPro) has generated tens of millions of these, it is becoming a commodity product that can be manufactured cheaply by any number of Chinese companies. CompUSA/Tigerdirect is selling refurb JVC 1080P camcorders about the same size as the GoPro for $59 and it has an LCD so you can see what you are doing!

It is easy to make better true underwater housings for almost any of them.

BTW for better underwater performance you would want a DOME port NOT flat. Standard underwater optical theory for wide angle lenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top